Date: August 1903
Pages: 126-144

## PLAN OF SPEECH ON THE PRINCIPLED SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAM

At the II Congress of the R.S.-D.R.P. [Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party], there was a delegation from the Foreign Committee of the Bund (according to the Congress Protocols—Hofman).

18) The citation given by Lenin appears to be taken from the speech of Shvartsman (Hofman-Kossovskii), delivered at the same 6th session of the congress. It has the meaning that the Bund participates in the general work of the R.S.-D.R.P. only through representation in the party's central organs, while local Bund organizations are in no way united in joint work with other local committees of the party, and the Party's Central Committee in no way enters into direct communication with local Bund organizations except through the Bund's Central Committee. There is no such exact phrase in the protocol record of Kossovskii's speech. Apparently, Vladimir Ilyich wrote it down during Kossovskii's speech to illustrate the position of the Bund. But the protocol record of his speech also shows no traces of use of this phrase.

14) This thesis, added later to point б of the developed plan, together with the following proposition of this point, represents the theme of the second part of the third paragraph of Lenin's speech.

15) This point (without special enumeration) in general corresponds to the final point of the original schema of the plan.

16) The final thesis of this point of the plan represents the theme of the final paragraph of Lenin's speech ("Protocols," p. 85, Collected Works, IV, p. 290).

In the "Congress Diary" in the record of the 9th session [see above p. 9], Lenin made the following brief, completely undeveloped entry: "42.35—42.45. Lenin and his points." This entry only notes that at the indicated moment of the session Lenin delivered a speech on the question under discussion. But in the "Diary" we do not find what exactly his "points" consisted of. This gap in the "Diary" is filled by the document printed below, which represents a plan of Lenin's speech at the 9th session of the congress with an indication of his "points." More precisely, it is a plan not of the entire speech but of its greater part (excluding the first paragraph), devoted to criticism of the statements by "economists" Martyanov and Akimov against the principled section of the program ("Protocols" of the congress, ed. 1924, pp. 120—422, Collected Works, IV, pp. 290—292). Since a significant part of the propositions in this plan concerns Akimov's statement at the same 9th session of the congress, the present document can be dated with full accuracy to August 4. The document is written on the reverse side of a leaf with a record of the above-cited plan of Lenin's speech at the 6th session of the congress on the report by Liber.

---

## PLAN OF SPEECH ON THE PRINCIPLED SECTION OF THE PARTY PROGRAM
### TO THE 9TH SESSION, AUGUST 4

A. Economism has spoken, which I struggled against in *What Is To Be Done?*—
— dictatorship of the proletariat²)
— impoverishment
— 1) THE PROLETARIAT NOT IN THE NOMINATIVE CASE³)
() || not the party of the proletariat, but the party of all the exploited⁴) ||
Erfüllungstheorie*)⁵)
[Consciousness of the proletariat is nowhere underscored.]⁶)

B.⁷) (а development of worker-leaders?
а struggle against diminishing to the masses and to the middle peasants?
(( а demand for development of professional movement?
\\ а reservation: Schulze-Delitsch⁸) and those like him?
|| а phantom—bourgeois democracy?

B. Overturned the stick.⁹)

*) The first thesis of this plan-outline of Lenin's speech corresponds to the second paragraph and the beginning of the third paragraph of the protocol record of the speech ("Protocols of the II Congress," ed. 1924, p. 121, Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 291).

2) These theses are set forth in the protocol record of the speech in the following form: "They [Martyanov and Akimov, Ed.] went so far as to 'refute' the theory of impoverishment and to 'dispute' the dictatorship of the proletariat." (Ibid.)

3) This thesis concerns the character of Akimov's argumentation in his criticism of the principled section of the program and is developed in detail at the end of the third paragraph of the protocol record of the speech (ibid.).

4) This proposition is taken from Akimov's speech ("Protocols," p. 115, penultimate paragraph of Akimov's speech, and also "Diary of sessions of the II Congress," see above, p. 94). The objection to this assertion in the protocol record of Lenin's speech is connected with the statement not of Akimov but of Liber, and is set forth in the first paragraph of the speech ("Protocols," pp. 120—121, Collected Works, vol. IV, pp. 290—291). Apparently, therefore, Vladimir Ilyich in the subsequent part of his speech, devoted to the statements of Martyanov and Akimov, does not touch upon this proposition.

5) Explanations regarding this point of the plan are given in note 53 to the "Diary of sessions of the II Congress" (above, pp. 115—116).

6) This proposition is taken also from Akimov's speech ("Protocols," p. 114, and also "Diary of sessions of the II Congress"—see above, p. 94).

*) — theory of fulfilment. Ed.

It is crossed out in the manuscript. There are no direct references to it in the protocol record of Lenin's speech. But the development of objections to this assertion of Akimov is essentially devoted entirely to paragraphs 4 and 5 of Lenin's speech ("Protocols," pp. 121—122, Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 292).

7) Point B of this plan of speech represents the development of objections to the preceding, crossed-out in the manuscript proposition of Akimov and corresponds to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the protocol record of Lenin's speech (ibid.).

8) F. Schulze-Delitsch (1808—1883)—German public figure, ideologist of the petty bourgeoisie, who propagandized the creation of cooperative associations, which, in his opinion, were capable of ensuring the economic independence of artisans and generally of small producers, as well as workers; in his economic views, which were subjected to criticism by Lassalle, he was a supporter of Bastiat's "harmonious" theory.

9) Point B of the plan of speech corresponds to the concluding part of Lenin's speech according to its record in the congress protocols ("Protocols," p. 122, final paragraph of his speech).

The notes printed below refer to the beginning of the 22nd session of the congress. After the adoption of a resolution, which was an introduction to the party statute, a delegation of the Bund proposed postponing discussion of the all-party statute and first discussing the Bund's statute. These notes, apparently made during the debates on the question raised by the Bund delegates, represent a fragmentary record of Vladimir Ilyich's own remarks and individual propositions from the speeches of other congress delegates who spoke on the subject of the Bund delegation's proposal. The enumeration of individual points in these notes apparently indicates the order in which Vladimir Ilyich intended to construct his speech on this question. In the Congress "Protocols" (ed. 1924, p. 219), Lenin's statement on this question is noted very briefly: only the 0th point of these notes is recorded in it, representing Vladimir Ilyich's own remark on the Bund's proposal.

---

## NOTES ON THE DEBATES ON THE BUND'S PROPOSAL ON THE ORDER OF DISCUSSION OF THE PARTY STATUTE
### TO THE 22ND SESSION, AUGUST 15

["Principally" decide our legitimate demand.]¹)

1. "Only then" can we examine the points.²)

2. To whom is autonomy applied—
— this is a principled question.³)

3. An unheard-of proposal: part before the whole.
This would be "laughable," were it not [outrageous!].⁴)

*) This note by Vladimir Ilyich, crossed out in the manuscript as having no relation to the rest of the record, apparently was made earlier. It could relate to a statement by Plekhanov or Trotskii at the seventh session of the congress regarding Liber's objection to the acceptance of Martov's principled resolution on the place of the Bund in the party. The first of them said: "Liber's practical proposal comes down to not accepting a principled decision. I protest against this proposal." ("Protocols," p. 92.) Trotskii on the same point said: "Our debates, which revealed an undoubted negative attitude of the congress toward the principle of Federation, caused our comrades from the Bund to take back their project. This stage in our debates we, as 'doctrinaires,' want to consolidate with a resolution." (Ibid., p. 94.)

2) This note refers to Liber's first statement on this question after the vote on the introductory resolution to the party statute. It marks the meaning of Liber's statement that the Bund delegates "only then" can "examine" the all-party statute point by point when they know the "exceptions" from the all-party statute relating to the Bund, i.e., when the Bund's statute will be examined (first). (Ibid., p. 218.)

3) This note refers to Liber's final statement on the question raised by the Bund delegates. It corresponds to the following record of his speech in the congress protocols: "We are told that the principle on which the majority stands is autonomy, and they think that by this they have said something. But the question is to whom one wants to apply autonomy." (Ibid., p. 219.)

4) Both remarks in point 3 belong to Vladimir Ilyich himself. Judging by the external character of the record and by its meaning, they are closely connected with each other. The first of them is recorded in the protocol record of Vladimir Ilyich's statement on the Bund delegation's proposal to consider their statute before the all-party statute (ibid., p. 219), the second is absent from the protocol.

It was already noted above that among the sessions and questions only mentioned by Vladimir Ilyich in his "Diary" without illumination were also the 22nd and 23rd sessions of the congress, wholly devoted to discussion of § 1 of the Party Statute. This gap in the "Diary" is filled by the "Notes on the debates on § 4 of the Statute" printed here (as they are named by Vladimir Ilyich himself). The notes presented here represent as it were a fragment of the "Diary," only transferred from the notebook on the pages of which the "Diary" was kept to separate sheets. They cover a significant part of the debates on § 4 of the Statute from their very beginning throughout both sessions (22 and 23) devoted to this question. Since from the external appearance of the record (hasty pencil writing, textual citation of characteristic passages from speakers' speeches) one can confidently assert that the notes were made during the debates themselves, their precise date is August 15, new style.

---

## NOTES ON THE DEBATES ON § 1 OF THE STATUTE
### TO SESSIONS 22—23, AUGUST 13

What is a "party organization"
= an organization recognized by the party and included in the system of party institutions.*)

**Akselrod:**
The party is identified with organization: this is a minus.
Example of a "professor": a member of the party, but not a member of an
organization. Such people cannot be admitted to the party.²)

**Martov:** "the [party] calls in its ranks all the exploited."³)
|  A member of the party has no more rights than to bring [matters]
| to the knowledge of the centers.

**Trotskii:**
Strictly conspiratorial understanding
of the party.

**Bülow [V. E. Mandelberg]:**⁵)
| All organizations must be conspiratorial, but it is impossible to do this.
\ Incorrect. (loose organizations)

Stimulus = organize yourselves!
confusion: control is impossible, elimination is impossible.
Bear organizations.⁶)

**Liber [M. I. Liber]**—for Akselrod and Martov
as for me, one misunderstanding.⁷)

The whole dispute is about words (what Lenin calls the party, they
call organization).

|  If he goes (into danger), then
\ he will be a professional revolutionary.

If, however, they want to compromise on organization, then there
are no obstacles.⁸)
did not understand me⁹)

"Ideological grouping"¹⁰)
"WE DO NOT DEMAND THE IMPOSSIBLE"¹⁰)!

**Martyninov [V. N. Rozanov]** saved from the fermentation of minds
introduced by me.

The Central Committee—this is spirit.¹¹)

**Akselrod:** the objection is not serious.
Exiles?
I said nothing about the West.¹²)

By what decrees will you forbid him to call himself a social-democrat?

**Martyninov:**
Conspirators—agents—masses
(Not so important: "to bargain")
| Akselrod's
[Bruker [L. P. Makhnovets]¹⁴)
Erroneous:¹³)
No. 1*) (not elastic)¹⁵)
| introduction of moral principle  | narrowing of the circle and breadth¹⁷)
\ etc. into political statute ) firmness and purity¹⁸)
party
ideological grouping
masses
"our party [organizations] must be organizations of professional revolutionaries"²⁰)
speech in court: harm²¹)
X                X
outside
"Struggle," literateurs

*) The mark "No. 1" means a comparison of this record "(not elastic)" with two places from Martov's speech on the following page under the same "No. 1." Ed.

**) This mark means a comparison of this record: "speech in court: harm" with one place in Martov's speech, crossed out by Lenin and marked with the same mark on the following page. Ed.

separation of chatterers and workers: better 10 workers not called members than 1 chatterer called one.||)

Repeating: the strength and power of the Central Committee, the firmness and purity of the party—herein lies the essence.

^ Struve will organize and enter the party.²³) *)
[**Martov:** Main] objection—impossibility.²⁴)

Idea (loose organizations) is correct, but the means are unsuitable.²⁵)

((  The Central Committee will not hold out and in practice will proceed to include everyone and anyone. Therefore Bruker is for.²⁶)

Even registration is possible: one can determine how many leaflet distributors there are.²⁷)
either "organizational utopia"
of Lenin
or 99/100—outside
the party.²⁸)

No. 1  I wish to make everyone members of the party: if you want
NB. ||| yes.*)*)

X NB ||  A Union of independents—it would be good if it went.] ³⁰)

From Lenin's point of view, the first point would not be needed.
| **Members of the party have no rights.**
**Responsibility**³¹)

*) This is Vladimir Ilyich's own remark, giving a definition of the concept "party organization," apparently provoked by the confusion of the concepts "party" and "organization" that was revealed in the subsequent debates. At this place in the "Notes," the statement of Kgrov (E. Ya. Levin) is not mentioned, which was the first after the reporter of the statute commission Noskov ("Protocols" of the congress, p. 220).

2) This phrase represents a compressed formulation of Akselrod's concluding thought in his first statement on § 1 of the Statute, which in the protocol record is set forth as follows: "...Let us take, for example,

*) On the page of the manuscript on which this text is written (beginning with the words "Not so important"), there are several scattered in different places on the page: "circle," "narrowing of the circle," "birch tree," "way of life." The last two words, along with some drawings in the same places on that page, have no direct relation to the main text. Ed.

a professor who considers himself a social-democrat and declares this. If we accept Lenin's formula, then we will throw overboard people, even if they cannot be admitted directly to the organization, but who are nonetheless members of the Party."

3) The phrase in quotation marks here, representing a reference to the well-known proposition of the general part of the party program ("Protocols," p. 2, final three lines, and also Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 329, end of the 3rd paragraph from below), apparently was said by Martov at the beginning of his speech. In the protocol record it is absent.

4) Underlining this place in Martov's speech, Vladimir Ilyich apparently meant to point out thereby yet another argument against the Martovian formulation of § 1 of the Statute.

5) In the "Protocols" of the congress this statement is not recorded: after the record of Trotskii's speech at the 22nd session of the congress at this place in the "Protocols" immediately follows the record of Lenin's speech ("Protocols," p. 222).

V. E. Mandelberg (Bülow)—an Iskra supporter; delegate at the II Congress of the R.S.-D.R.P. from the Siberian Union; at the congress joined the group of Martvists and after the split at the congress became a Menshevik; now lives in Palestine.

6) The text, beginning with the word "Incorrect," represents an outline of the plan of the speech delivered by Vladimir Ilyich at the 22nd session of the congress ("Protocols," p. 222). The phrase "Bear organizations" represents someone's argument against Lenin's formulation of § 1 of the Statute, which Vladimir Ilyich apparently intended to touch on in his speech. In the protocol record of Lenin's speech there is an allusion to this remark in the concluding phrase: "The necessary sign of a party organization is its confirmation by the Central Committee."

Lenin's phrase: "confusion: control is impossible, elimination is impossible," pointing to the confusion introduced into the party's internal organizational work by the Martovian formulation of § 1 of the Statute, to the impossibility of real control by the guiding organs over party members not entered into the party organization, to the impossibility of their elimination, in the protocol record of Lenin's speech at the 22nd session of the congress is not recorded.

7) This, apparently, is how M. I. Liber expressed himself regarding Lenin's argumentation on § 1 of the Statute. There is no such literal expression in the protocol record of Liber's speech ("Protocols," p. 222).

8) The final two statements by Liber (this one and the preceding) in the protocol record of his speech are indirectly reflected in the following form: "Comrade Lenin confuses the question of organization with the question of individual personalities." (Ibid.)

9) This is Vladimir Ilyich's own remark regarding this place in Liber's statement.

10) These expressions, taken by Lenin in quotation marks and underlined by him, apparently are also cited from Liber's speech. In the protocol record of Liber's speech there are no such expressions. By meaning one can assume that both expressions in Liber's speech referred to "social-democrats who recognize the program but cannot and do not wish to enter the organization" (ibid.).

11) Here is noted an expression in the speech of Martyninov (V. N. Rozanov), set forth in the protocol record in such form: "The Central Committee, as spirit, existing and united everywhere..." Vladimir Ilyich ironically underlined the word "spirit." In the protocol opposite this expression of Rozanov there is in parentheses a remark by Vladimir Ilyich: "fist!" (Ibid., p. 223.)

12) The places noted here from Akselrod's speech in the protocol record are not recorded.

13) Here is noted the main thought of Martyninov's speech, that the social-democratic party cannot be an organization of "conspirator-agents" acting "behind the backs of those whose interests they protect," but must be organically connected with the proletarian masses through an entire network of organizations" ("Protocols," p. 225).

Below in the manuscript follows a synopsis sketch of Lenin's second speech on § 1 of the Statute, delivered by him at the 23rd session of the congress ("Protocols," pp. 230—232, Collected Works, vol. IV, pp. 298—301). The words: "not so important: 'to bargain' Akselrod's" are developed in Lenin's speech in the following words: "First, regarding the kind (I say this without irony) proposal of Akselrod to 'bargain.' I would readily follow this call, since I do not at all consider our disagreement to be so essential that the life or death of the Party depends on it. From a bad point of the statute we are still far from perishing!"

14) The mention here of the name Bruker (L. P. Makhnovets) marks Lenin's remark about the motives of her solidarity with his formulation of § 1 of the Statute and Martov's malicious glee regarding Bruker's solidarity with Lenin in this case ("Protocols," pp. 230—231).

15) The expression "Erroneous" refers to the formulation of § 1 of the Statute by Martov and to his point of view.

16) The underlined expression here "not elastic," taken from Martov's speech, in which he called his own formulation "elastic," marks Lenin's sharp opposition of his own and Martov's formulations of § 1 of the Statute ("Protocols," pp. 231, 232).

17) Here is noted the diametrically opposite meaning of Lenin's and Martov's formulations: Lenin's concept of a party member—a definite "narrowing of the circle," a selection into the party of the best, firm elements, the isolation of the revolutionary vanguard; Martov's concept of a party member—"breadth," diffuseness, the blurring of the boundary between the concepts of party and class.

18) This remark is formulated in the protocol record of Lenin's speech as follows: "The protection of the firmness of the line and the purity of the principles of the Party becomes precisely now a matter all the more urgent, since the Party, restored in its unity, will admit into its ranks very many unstable elements, the number of which will grow as the Party grows." ("Protocols," p. 231, Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 299.)

19) This remark is developed in Lenin's speech in the following words: "The Party must be only the vanguard, the leader of the enormous mass of the working class, which in its entirety (or almost in its entirety) works 'under the control and guidance' of party organizations, but which must not and should not enter the Party in its entirety." (Ibid.)

20) This text, taken in quotation marks and expressing the main thought of the brochure *What Is To Be Done?*, apparently marks that part of Lenin's speech in which he examines Trotskii's objections. This part of the speech ends with words about how our task is "to conspire a more or less narrow circle of leaders and draw into the movement as wide a mass as possible" (ibid.).

21) This remark represents an objection to Martov, which in the protocol record of Lenin's speech is set forth as follows: "Comrade Martov was horrified at the fact that in court a non-member of the party organization would not have the right, despite his energetic work, to call himself a member of the Party. I am not frightened by this. Serious harm would be, on the contrary, if a man who calls himself a member of the Party, not belonging to any of the party organizations, made an undesirable statement in court." (Ibid., p. 232, Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 301.)

22) It is not clear what Vladimir Ilyich meant by making the mark: "'Struggle,' literateurs." One can assume that he intended in his speech to point to the "Struggle" group and to "literateurs" as an illustration of the following thought about "the separation of chatterers and workers." In the protocol record of his speech these remarks found no reflection.

23) This remark apparently refers to Trotskii's speech at the 23rd session of the congress. The corresponding place in the protocol record of Trotskii's speech is set forth as follows: "Can these gentlemen... subjects of the 'intelligent' milieu, who call themselves social-democrats, group youth and betray it to Pyotr Struve... not be able to enter some broad (loose) party organization? Can they not themselves constitute some organization or other?" ("Protocols," p. 230.)

P. B. Struve (b. 1870)—in the 90s, author of the "Manifesto of the R.S.-D.R.P.," issued by decree of the 1st Congress of the party; the most prominent representative of "legal Marxism" and Russian "revisionism" of the late 90s and early 1900s; participant and editor of legal Marxist journals *New Word*, *Beginning*, *Life*; in March 1900 S., together with M. I. Tugan-Baranovskii from the group of "legal Marxists," participated in a Pskov meeting with Lenin, Martov, and Potresov on the question of organizing the publication of *Spark*; in late 1900—early 1901, as a representative of the "democratic opposition," conducted negotiations with Iskra supporters on a bloc, contributed to the first issues of *Spark*; soon definitively broke with Marxism and, moving into the camp of liberals, became the leader of the organization of zemstvo-constitutionalists—the "Union of Liberation" (1902—1905) and editor of the organ *Liberation*; with the formation of the C.D. party, S. entered its Central Committee; after the defeat of the 1905 revolution became the leader of the rightmost wing of the liberals and subsequently completely slid toward Black Hundred nationalism; during the Civil War S. participated in the Denikin government, and then was a minister under Wrangel; later edited in Prague the journal *Russian Thought*, uniting right-wing Kadets with monarchists; since 1925 publishes in Paris an Orthodox-monarchist newspaper *Renaissance*.

24) This note refers to the beginning of Martov's speech at the 23rd session of the congress, which in the "Protocols" is set forth as: "Of all the objections directed against my formulation, I will dwell on the objection of the impossibility of my § 1, i.e., the control of party organizations over Party members." ("Protocols," p. 226.)

25) This record, representing Vladimir Ilyich's own remark, is a brief formulation of the answer to the following place in Martov's speech: "For Lenin there are no other organizations in the Party besides 'party organizations.' For me, on the contrary, such organizations must exist. Life creates and bears organizations faster than we manage to include them in the hierarchy of our fighting organization of professional revolutionaries." (Ibid.) Lenin answers: "The idea of 'loose organizations' is correct, but the means [Martov's § 1, Ed.] are unsuitable."

26) The corresponding place in Martov's speech in the "Protocols": "comrade Bruker well understands that life will have its way and that the Central Committee, in order not to leave many organizations outside the Party, will have to legalize them, despite their not entirely reliable character; therefore, comrade Bruker also joins Lenin." ("Protocols," p. 226.)

27) Here is recorded Martov's assertion that control of the party organization over party members not entered into the party organization is entirely possible. In the protocol record of Martov's speech this is absent.

28) This, apparently, is the finale of Martov's speech. Its meaning is: either one must recognize Lenin's formula an "organizational utopia" and reject it, or accept it and thereby leave 99% of elements desirable for the party outside the party. In the "Protocols" in Martov's speech there is no such place.

29) This acknowledgment by Martov in the protocol record of his speech is absent. But Lenin not only noted this statement by Martov in his notes but also in his own speech confirmed that Martov expressed himself in just this way. "This formulation [of Martov's, Ed.] inevitably strives to make everyone and anyone members of the Party; comrade Martov himself had to recognize this with the reservation—'if you wish, yes,' he said." ("Protocols," p. 232, Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 300.)

30) This note, crossed out in the manuscript, refers to the following opinion expressed by Martov: "I would consider it a great triumph of our Party if, for example, some union of 'independents' determined that it... enters the Party." (Ibid., p. 226.)

31) The final note represents one of Vladimir Ilyich's propositions in his speech at the 23rd session of the congress, set forth in the "Protocols" as follows: "Independently even of rights, one cannot forget that every member of the Party is responsible to the Party and the Party is responsible for every member." (Ibid., p. 232, Collected Works, vol. IV, p. 301.)

Among the sessions of the congress which in Vladimir Ilyich's "Diary" are only mentioned, without any indications of the debates constituting their content, is also the 25th session with discussion of the question of the construction of the Party Council. This gap in the "Diary" is somewhat filled by the plan of Lenin's speech at this session printed below on the question of the construction of the Council. On the substance of this question Lenin, judging from the congress protocols, spoke twice. This plan relates, properly speaking, to the first of these two his statements ("Protocols of the II Congress," ed. 1924, p. 246). In his second speech, objecting to the arguments of V. I. Zasulich, Vladimir Ilyich repeatedly develops one of the propositions already expressed by him, marked in the plan (ibid., p. 248). This plan was, in all probability, sketched by Vladimir Ilyich at this same session before his statement, i.e., August 17, new style.

---

## PLAN OF SPEECH ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARTY COUNCIL
### TO THE 25TH SESSION, AUGUST 17

1) there is no need for an arbitrational character.*)
[2) election by the congress of the most experienced comrades, wherever they may be from].²)
3) **Cannot leave the Council to chance, to luck.**³)
[4) Replacement by the institutions themselves. Or, in case of impossibility, by the remaining members of the Council.]⁴)

*) Point 1 of the plan corresponds to the first part of the protocol record of Vladimir Ilyich's first speech on this question, which states: "Lenin finds inconvenient the first formulation [by Yu. O. Martov and V. A. Noskov (see below "Materials of the statute commission" of the congress, p. 154.) Ed.] in view of the fact that it gives the Council an arbitrational character. The Council, however, should be not only an arbitrational institution but also one coordinating the activities of the Central Committee and the Central Organ." ("Protocols," p. 246.)

2) Point 2 of the plan, crossed out in the manuscript, is not expressed in either of Lenin's speeches on the Council at the 25th session of the congress. Apparently, this point was omitted by him. In substance, it corresponds to the meaning of the first part of the formulation of the point on the Council given by V. I. Lenin (see below "Materials of the statute commission" of the congress, pp. 155—156).

3) Point 3 of the plan is expressed in the second half of Lenin's first speech in its protocol record. Here is its text: "It is also proposed to have the fifth member appointed by the congress. It is possible that four members of the Council will not be able to elect a fifth; we will then be left without the necessary institution." This same proposition Vladimir Ilyich develops in his second speech (against Zasulich) ("Protocols," pp. 246 and 248).

4) This point of the plan, like point 2 in the manuscript, is crossed out and found no expression in Vladimir Ilyich's speeches at the 25th session of the congress. In content it corresponds to the 2nd part of the formulation of the point on the Council given by Lenin in the statute commission, combining the initial redaction of this formulation with the later, corrected one ("Materials of the statute commission," pp. 155—156).

---

At the 27th and 28th sessions of the congress an incident unfolded with the departure of Martyninov and Akimov from the congress. At the 27th session they submitted a statement of their departure from the congress in view of the congress's adoption of § 43 of the Statute with recognition of the Foreign League as the only foreign organization, in which they saw an indirect decision to dissolve the Union of Russian Social-Democrats, whose delegates they were at the congress ("Protocols," ed. 1924, p. 267). This moment of the congress in Lenin's congress "Diary" remained unilluminated. The project resolution printed below by Vladimir Ilyich on this matter represents a substantial supplement to the "Diary," illuminating Lenin's attitude to this fact as sharply negative. Vladimir Ilyich in his resolution proposes to Martyninov and Akimov either to take back their statement